High Assurance Digital Forensics: A Panelist's Perspective

In these times of trendy LPU1 papers, you may consider this as two papers in one. If you like controversial positions and observations, then I suggest you focus on the second part of this paper (sections V and VI). If you like history, institutional knowledge, definitions, and the wisdom of senior scientist-practitioners, then I suggest you focus on the first part of this paper (sections II through IV). I wrote both as parts of an integrated whole in the hope that you will like that as well.In the first part of this paper (sections II through IV), I attempt to give an adequate working definition of the term “high assurance” for use in the context of “high assurance digital forensics,” with assistance by many luminaries in the field.In the second part of this paper (sections V and VI), I give my observations and reactions to my panelist experience for the “High Assurance Digital Forensics” panel for the Fourth International IEEE Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering2 (SADFE). I also examine my overall workshop experiences. In particular, I examine how the computer science paradigm does not compose very well with the legal paradigm and the truly massive problems and dangers that this causes. I sum up with a list of questions that we must answer if we truly wish high assurance digital forensics used properly.